Forensic psychiatry embodies a highly heterogeneous population differing widely in terms of diagnoses, crimes committed, and risk factors. All of these are vitally important for treatment indications and should be accounted for in research. However, there is limited empirical knowledge of patient profiles. This study constructed patient profiles on the basis of the three domains mentioned above. Participants were found guilty of having committed crimes due to psychiatric disorders and were admitted to Forensic Psychiatric Center (FPC) 2landen or FPC De Kijvelanden in the Netherlands. Retrospective data were retrieved from patient files. Diagnoses were assessed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR) criteria and risk factors according to the Historical Clinical Future-30 (HKT-30) instrument. Latent class analysis was conducted to define typologies; external variables were included for validation. Four different classes or "patient risk profiles," with varying psychopathologies, risk factors, and crimes, were identified. Results were consistent with previous studies, and external validation with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) two-factor model and the four facets of the PCL-R agreed with results found. Results display specific risk factors for specific psychopathology/offense combinations.

No abstract

BackgroundRehabilitation in forensic psychiatry is achieved gradually with different leave modules, in line with the Risk Need Responsivity model. A forensic routine outcome monitoring tool should measure treatment progress based on the rehabilitation theory, and it should be predictive of important treatment outcomes in order to be usable in decision-making. Therefore, this study assesses the predictive validity for both positive (i.e., leave) and negative (i.e., inpatient incidents) treatment outcomes with the Instrument for Forensic Treatment Evaluation (IFTE).MethodsTwo-hundred and twenty-four patients were included in this study. ROC analyses were conducted with the IFTE factors and items for three leave modules: guided, unguided and transmural leave for the whole group of patients. Predictive validity of the IFTE for aggression in general, physical aggression specifically, and urine drug screening (UDS) violations was assessed for patients with the main diagnoses in Dutch forensic psychiatry, patients with personality disorders and the most frequently occurring co-morbid disorders: those with combined personality and substance use disorders.Results and ConclusionsResults tentatively imply that the IFTE has a reasonable to good predictive validity for inpatient aggression and a marginal to reasonable predictive value for leave approvals and UDS violations. The IFTE can be used for information purposes in treatment decision-making, but reports should be interpreted with care and acknowledge patients’ personal risk factors, strengths and other information sources.

No abstract